The Second Law of Thermodynamics Points To Creation

Time and chance result in less information and less organization. That is the proven Second Law of Thermodynamics. You can see The Second Law of Thermodynamics at work in everything from your car to your house to your body. Look at what happens to your car over time. With an executed plan of preventive maintenance and scheduled renovations, you could reverse or cancel the effects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now, consider what happens to a house or other building over time. You would need a plan and a method to execute that plan plus an external energy source (the Sun) to overcome the effects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Think about a person's body at 16 years old and then again at 85 years old. There is no plan, method, or mechanism that you could use to fully overcome the effects of aging.

Some have said that simply adding energy from an external source will reverse or cancel the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Adding energy from an external source, as the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor and the U.S. did to Hiroshima a few decades ago--and as the Sun does to the roof of your house every day--adding energy just makes things worse.Only if there is a way to control, direct, and use that energy according to a plan will there be any benefit from outside energy. Otherwise, external energy just increases entropy--the effect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The Evolutionists will tell you a half truth about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Evolutionists will tell the half truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the Earth is an open system." This is a clever lie. Here is the part of the truth that they are withholding: the Second Law of Thermodynamics was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Not only that, but we are not talking about the Earth. The Earth is just a subsystem of a much larger system called the Universe. The Universe is an isolated system. Evolutionists claim that Evolution took place in this isolated system, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that their story is a myth.

What are the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for the molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication? From a scientific standpoint, the evolutionist's claim of millions or billions of years actually hurts their case for trying to sell the Evolutionistic story. When evolutionists claim that adding energy reverses the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they are either showing ignorance or showing a willingness to lie. It is possible for people to be educated into ignorance.

One evolutionist claimed, "Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent." This is nave. This actually secretly assumes that there is such a thing as an isolated system, but all systems are open systems. http://www.icr.org/article/entropy-open-systems/ Also, research the links provided below for more on this.

The earth is open to the Sun, but that's not enough. There has to be a mechanism to convert that energy into complexity. The introduction of energy into an open system will increase entropy, not decrease it. In other words, if you lay out in the Sun, your skin will get old faster. If you park your car in the Sun, the paint job will go bad faster. A mechanism, such as the mechanism found in plants, has to be in place to use solar energy or else the energy just makes things self-destruct faster.

"Once I had a formal debate with two biologists on the faculty at a state university. I used the entropy law as one of my main arguments, but neither of the evolutionists even mentioned this argument in their rebuttals. In the question period that followed, the professor who was teaching the course in engineering thermodynamics at that university asked them how they would answer the argument, which seemed valid to him. After consulting with each other, they said they did not know how to answer it, since they had both done poorly in physics. But they still insisted evolution was science. " Dr. Henry Morris http://icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2477

"Actual/Observed: natural selection is a conservative force that is more likely to keep animals the same (a possible reason for stasis in the fossil record, if it is taken as a record of time, and not a record of sudden catastrophe), and mutations, due to their random nature, cannot add new genetic information. It is illegitimate to use Natural Selection to support Evolution. Natural Selection supports a young Earth and a Creator. http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_can%27t_be_falsified_%28Talk.Origins%29

"Natural selection can only operate on the genetic material already present in a population of organisms. It cannot create new genetic information and subsequently change one kind of organism into another." http://www.icr.org/natural-selection/

"Voodoo Economics. They pull information out of recombination and mutation (see a similar theory reported here July 9). They admit that the vast majority of mutations are lethal, harmful or (at best) neutral, but fail to give one example of a mutation that, even with recombination, generates anything that is useful or even interesting. They admit that "Mutation alone results in native sequences that are far from optimal," but the word optimal (used often in the paper) implies information (think about it). You cannot get information out of nothing. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0702.htm

That is what is being done with Pop! World. The authors are intentionally appealing to the baser video-game instincts of students rather than their intellect, character, or understanding. They attempt to slide a controversial world-view into their minds by making it sound fun and easy. But what they leave out of their visualized evolution screen is far more important than what they put in: e.g., (1) no gains in genetic information can come from random, unguided processes; (2) lizard color changes are mere horizontal variations rather than upward gains in complexity; (3) mutations are more likely to kill off a population than make it more fit (whatever fitness means); and more. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201101.htm

"The second law of thermodynamics (2TD), what Sir Arthur Eddington called the supreme law of nature, does not permit evolution, argued Granville Sewall in The American Spectator; in fact, evolution violates it "in a most spectacular way." A mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, Sewall explained that 2TD applies to much more than heat flow; it applies to every real system." creationsafaris.com

"Some evolutionists complain that the cell acts like a clumsy Rube Goldberg device. Notice what the engineers said, though: the smaller the parts, the more design and care was required. And the whole set was irreducibly complex, in that a failure of one part would bring the rest of the production to a halt. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm

Half-Truth: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it's not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system. (It was derived using theoretical isolated systems, but it applies to all systems, and can only be overcome locally and temporarily in open systems when stringent conditions are met. Furthermore, the universe, in which evolution is alleged to have occurred, is an isolated system.)" http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

"The second law of thermodynamics applies to living systems just as much as it ever did, and Prigogine never claimed he had found a solution to the spontaneous assemblage of the high degree of order that a living cell would require to emerge from chaos. In fact, he said quite the opposite: "Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures." The kind of order in life is functional information, a different category of order altogether than that in a crystal or vortex. Just as a dissipative structure will never produce a written text or a symphony, it cannot produce a living cell." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0703.htm

"The 'obvious tendency of nature from disorder to order and organization' is, of course, only an assumption of evolutionists. The real tendency in the natural world, as expressed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is from order and organization to disorder." http://www.icr.org/article/thermodynamics-origin-life-part-i/

"Whenever the ordering of a local system results in beauty, symmetry, or function, this requires a pre-designed code, and does not happen by chance. Each physical agent operating at a higher level must function with greater order and power than the effect it produces. The ultimate cause which controls all secondary processes must have infinite power and organizing intelligence. Such a first cause is called God. Thus God either directly or by secondary processes produces order." http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-snowflake/

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task." http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-biologically-impossible/

"Creationists have for over a decade been emphasizing that the Second Law really applies only to open systems, since there is no such thing as a truly isolated system. The great French scientist and mathematician, Emil Borel, has proved this fact mathematically, as acknowledged by Layzer:" http://www.icr.org/article/entropy-open-systems/

"Natural selection, i.e., the forces of nature, does not change the DNA of the individual animal at all, and can only change the total gene pool of a species by eliminating unfit individuals (leading to the loss, not gain, of genetic information). Genetic drift, or gene shuffling, only involves the shuffling of existing genes within a kind. It does not explain the origination of any gene. Another textbook states: "New alleles |genes| originate only by mutation."3 The only way for organisms to acquire DNA other than what they inherited from their parents is for their DNA to change, or mutate. If their DNA doesn't change, living things could never change regardless of how much time passes." http://www.icr.org/article/mutations-raw-material-for-evolution/

"Yet even this 'simple' organism has far too much information to be expected from time and chance, without natural selection. The information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated that given a pool of pure, activated biological amino acids, the total amount of information which could be produced, even allowing 109 years as evolutionists posit, would be only a single small polypeptide 49 amino acid residues long.5 This is about 1/8 the size (therefore information content) of a typical protein, yet the hypothetical simple cell above needs at least 256 proteins... NB: natural selection cannot help, as this requires self-replicating entities--therefore it cannot explain their origin." http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/196.asp

Evolution has a very real information problem. Information is never created. Existing information is passed from one thing to another, rearranged, destroyed, lost, or duplicated but never is it created by natural processes.

(Read the latest science on the subject: Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. (See Basic and Concise Guide to Practical, Useful Logic and Reasoning). God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.